Ordinance No.

27-10
Radical Changes in Development
Ordinance No. 27-10 proposes a number of a number of radical changes in West Lafay-
ette development rules for central business districts and multiple unit residences. The rules in
the ordinance changes represent a dramatic departure from both the current ordinance require-
ments and the typical guidelines applied to planned developments in the past. Many of these
changes appear to be somewhat technical, but have critical real world consequences.

History of Multi-Unit Student Housing

As students began making the move out of traditional university based housing (dorms,
organized group housing units, married student courts) in large numbers, the conversion of
housing in older neighborhoods to rentals created various concerns and problems. The existence
of multi-unit zones in the south end of the city and in various “spot zones” in other locations
created issues between existing single-family neighborhoods and the newer rental housing.
Problems included: (1) 3
1/2 story structures (with
35 foot overall height)
towering over existing
housing, (2) insufficient
parking, and (3) exces-
sive density. The solution
to the problems was the
R3W zone and a new for-
mula for parking require-
ments. The R3W zone
included an important re-
striction on height. That
restriction was that the
uppermost floor could not be at a greater elevation that 14 feet. The previous restriction was a
35 foot overall height. The change limited the structure design to 2 1/2 stories with a conven-
tional roofline. The 35 foot overall limit had allowed 3 1/2 story buildings with low slope roof-
lines. These buildings towered over neighboring single-family dwellings. They were simply
“out of scale” for the neighborhoods. The parking requirements were changed from 2 per unit to
a schedule that depended on the size of the unit: 825 sq. ft. and over—3; 650 - 824 sq. ft.—
2.25; 470 - 649 sq. ft.—1.6; under 470 sq. ft.—1.1; efficiency—1. The combination of these
two important development standards restricted the overall density. At this time, an R4W zone
was established to allow higher density (although with the revised increased parking).

History of CBW Development

West Lafayette adopted the CBW zone to enable more “urban” redevelopment that fit
the specific circumstances of the university community. These rules related to patterns of use in
the university community, which included a mix of pedestrian and vehicle based users. The mix
typically varied based on how far the location was from the actual campus. In addition, CBW
properties typically were mixed use, with commercial on the first floor and multi-unit residen-
tial above. Another part of the history was the fact that most off-campus students bring a car to
campus (needing a parking space). In addition to developments under the CBW rules, numerous
mixed use developments in the Village and Levee areas occurred under specific planned devel-
opments. However, planned developments shared several characteristics and guidelines. These
included:
1. A restriction on the number of occupants in residential dwelling units;
2. A requirement of one parking space per each residential occupant;
3. Requirements for commercial parking, based on the type of use and distance from campus
(based on an estimate of pedestrian/vehicle users);
4. Specific landscape and amenity requirements; and
5. A list of permissible uses (that was consistent with the location and prescribed parking).
In addition, planned developments included the requirement of a specific architectural design,
including building materials. This has resulted in project with good architectural design and
quality materials and
finishes. Examples in-
clude the following.

State Street Towers

 Chauncey Square

State Street Commons

Wabash Landing
 River Market

Parking Wars
The proposed change would result in two dramatic parking changes: (1) residential
parking would be decreased from one per occupant (the planned development guideline) to one
per bedroom, and (2) commercial parking requirements would be dramatically reduced or elimi-
nated. These changes will be in direct conflict with the reality that residents and many commer-
cial customers have cars. If they can’t park where they live and shop, they will “poach” parking
wherever they can.
Throughout all of West
Lafayette near the campus,
apartments sport signs restrict-
ing parking to “tenants only.” If
higher density apartment devel-
opment is allowed with reduced
parking requirements, the battle
for parking spaces will inten-
sify. If only one person occu-
pies each bedroom, the result
would be similar to now. How-
ever, many landlords will likely yield to the temptation to increase their profits by designing
buildings to reduce the parking requirements (and acreage needed per student paying rent).
The math is simple. A two bedroom apartment with two occupants would require two
parking spaces (as a Village area PD). Under the new proposal, a landlord could design one
bedroom apartments for occupancy by two tenants with only one parking space. This would re-
duce the parking requirements for a building with 60 occupants from 60 spaces to 30 spaces. Of
course, most of the other 30 tenants will still
have cars. Where will they be parked? Perhaps
in adjoining neighborhoods on illegal gravel
lots and in the yards. Perhaps on the streets of
distant neighborhoods without timed parking
restrictions. History teaches that over 90% of
off-campus occupants will have cars and they

have to go somewhere. If developers are

permitted to design new projects without
space for these cars, they will go some-
where and that somewhere will be a prob-

lem for other property owners and

neighbors, but enriching the developer
who pushes the problem off onto others
under this proposal.
The commercial parking changes
for the
Village would reduce parking for all commercial uses to zero.
While many uses do attract significant pedestrian users, the re-
ality, clear to anyone who observes the Village today (and over
the past decades), is that many users, including students who
live not only all over West Lafayette, but in Lafayette and out
US 52 West, can only access the Village businesses by car. The
result today has been rabid signs warning against parking in the
wrong lot and dueling tow trucks to enforce the “turf” of each
developer. Both the signs and tow trucks are common through-
out virtually all commercial developments in the Village,
Levee and elsewhere in the campus-adjacent area. The restric-
tions are enforced day and night by fleets of tow trucks. Addi-
tional development coupled with reduced parking will
likely make West Lafayette the setting of a new cable tele-
vision reality show: Tow Wars.
The parking changes in the ordinance would also
reduce parking requirements in the Levee area. Bar/
restaurants there are now subject to the one space per 100
square feet of business premise requirement. The ordinance
would change that to one space per 250 square feet of busi-
ness premise. Bruno’s and Nine Irish Brothers are excellent
examples of the foolishness of this proposal. Both Bruno’s
and Nine Irish Brothers have added additional parking be-
yond what was originally required, in order to meet actual
customer demand. In addition, they both violate the zoning/
greenspace ordinances by parking on the grass/landscaping. They both sport signs with dire
warnings against non-customers using their parking lots.
Another longstanding parking conflict in the Levee has been between the Levee Plaza
owner and the theater, over parking. Both Levee Plaza and the theater have the required park-
ing. How much worse would the conflict be when parking requirements are reduced for both
commercial uses and future multi-unit residential in the area? The proposed change defies com-
mon sense.

Quality Development Versus Cheap Development

This proposal would cede all control over the quality of mixed use development in the
Village (and Levee, too, for that matter). Currently, developers can request planned develop-
ment status in order to increase the height of a building and to reduce parking if the developer
can demonstrate a sufficient mix of pedestrian users. In exchange, the community can demand
quality design and architecture, often improved tree plantings, and be assured of the total resi-
dential density and mix of permitted business uses. The city council (representing all of the
city’s voters) is the body responsible for approving such planned development rezonings.
It is an open secret that the owners of Chauncey Hill (the 70’s-style strip center) plan to
replace it with a 10 story high rise. If this project was one that the community would be proud
of, they would have already proposed it as a planned development. Or at least, they would bring
it forward as a poster child for this zoning change. No, the details are under wraps. Draw your
own conclusion about whether this redevelopment would make the community proud. Do we
want to buy this “pig in a poke?”
 The Towering Infernal
The proposal would place towering 3 1/2 story apartment buildings within and adjacent
to older neighborhoods. This will completely undo all the planning work that culminated in the
R3W zoning that provided for an intermediate lower density multi-unit zone (with the R4W
zone for higher density development).
Will the residents of the Schilling Addition welcome this next door (in place of the cur-
rent two story garden apartments)?

The change from the 14 foot top

floor height to 35 foot overall
height will enrich some devel-
opers, but impoverish our older
neighborhoods insofar as quality
of life. We will also see more
yard parking as adjoining prop-
erties bear the burden of accom-
modating cars that new rules do
not require new developments to provide. What about 65 foot tall buildings near Stadium and
Northwestern towering over the older neighborhood on Dodge and Evergreen Streets?
Reference the zoning map at the end to see where the conflicts will occur.

An Inapt Comparison
The rationale advanced for the CBW zoning change is that restrictions should be similar
to downtown Lafayette. There are two significant flaws in this comparison. Downtown Lafay-
ette has two large public parking garages—the county garage between 2nd and 3rd and the city
garage between 4th and 5th. In addition, there are private parking garages with the Chase Build-
ing and Renaissance Place. Perhaps the bigger problem with the comparison is the difference in
uses.
In addition to some restaurants and bars, much of downtown Lafayette consists of office
uses, as well as various retail, including burgeoning arts and crafts shops. These uses are low
intensity in terms of the number of employees and customers on the premises at one time. The
commercial uses in the West Lafayette Village are a mix that is much heavier on fast food and
bars. These uses are much more intense in terms of the number of employees and customers per
square foot. Think fast food versus and art gallery. Harry’s versus an antique shop. The parking
needs (even with a significant pedestrian customer base) are simply much higher for these more
intense uses.
The ongoing turf wars over parking spaces and the ordeal by towing prove that vehicu-
lar customers and parking are an important part of the mix in the West Lafayette Village and
Levee. For the proposed change to pretend otherwise is to ignore both history and what we can
see with our own eyes. Will the taxpayers be called on to provide the parking garages later at a
cost of millions of dollars? That is a policy question that should be considered honestly and up
front, not by passing a zoning change to externalize the parking costs of new developments and
force them to be addressed afterward.

A Worthy Goal, but a Dubious Roadmap

The goal of increasing density in the Village and Levee is a worthy one. It is a more ef-
ficient use of the land. By reducing commuting to campus, it can reduce vehicular/pedestrian
conflicts and accidents. However, this zoning change to encourage increased density ignores the
reality that most students bring cars and many customers come by car. The result will be devel-
opers getting rich and nearby neighborhoods and taxpayers paying the bill for the problems it
will create. The existing planned development process and its guidelines provided a responsible
route to higher density development under the control of our council representatives without
externalizing the problems and costs onto others.
West Lafayette Zoning Map
 Submitted by Area Plan Commission

27-10
The jurat on this document was not printed on discussion copies, in order to save paper and copying resources.
If you have questions about this, please contact the Office of the Clerk-Treasurer at clerk@westlafayette.in.gov.
Thank you.